The extracts featured below, all come (verbatim) from the officer’s report tabled in the minutes of 12th August 2002 on Amendment C25 – ie. the brainchild for the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change carve up of the municipality. Admittedly, it can be argued that times are different and that things have changed. What CANNOT be argued is that this Amendment was sold to residents on the basis of promises that have never been kept. Now we are lumbered with the new Residential Zones that (without community consultation or even forewarning) were rushed through in secret on the basis of Amendment C25.
Please note: the 80/20 Minimal Change/Housing Diversity policy is not only a dud but iniquitous. Housing diversity has grown and grown. Yet this was supposed to be ‘sufficient’ to cater for some nebulous population figures. What we now have is rapid creep into Minimal Change Areas where streets that were predominantly single storey and single dwelling are being transformed into 2 double storey dwellings on various lot sizes. Remember that Council, unlike others, has not limited the size for subdivision! Instead they are working on another amendment to allow more dwellings on larger lot sizes regardless of the fact that these are in Minimal Change.
The ‘proof’ that the 80/20 split is a myth and not working is provided by council itself. Buried in very small print in the Quarterly Report from September 2013, there is this staggering admission – ” 56% of dwellings approved were in Housing Diversity Areas”. So much for 80/20! And it’s getting worse! The rush is on for infill and that means Minimal Change. Yet, residents were told and dare we say ‘promised’, the following in relation to Amendment c25 which set this all up – (we’ve omitted comments regarding open space and that old chestnut – a Significant Tree Register!)
A radical change in character is not envisaged in the residential areas of the housing diversity areas. The most intensive development is sought in the commercial areas where apartments and shop top housing is envisaged. In the residential areas of housing diversity areas, the policy is intended to allow for some multi-unit development to meet Glen Eira’s housing needs whilst ensuring that it does not:
- Exceed prevailing building heights
- Dominate the street scape
- Adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties
- Result in the loss of landscaped front yards (all in accordance with the standards of ResCode)
The Housing and Residential Development Strategy recommends that structure plans and urban design frameworks be developed to manage the specific issues of each housing diversity area. These would examine issues such as the type, form, scale and character of development and would be implemented through further Planning Scheme amendments and other actions. The development of the structure plans and urban design framework will require wide-ranging consultation with traders, developers, residents and the wider community.
Designating these areas as areas of housing diversity does not mean that council would entertain leniency beyond the provisions in ResCode ie any reduction in open space, cr parking standards, etc.
Traffic and parking
While critically important to the viability and functioning of any commercial centre and character of residential areas, traffic and parking issues largely sit outside the jurisdiction of the planning scheme local policy. The proposed policy, therefore, does not attempt to comprehensively address existing or anticipated traffic and parking issues…..ResCode provides parking standards for residential development The Housing and Residential Development Strategy acknowledges that parking and traffic are issues in the city and should be addressed through a number of measures outside the Planning Scheme. These include parking precinct plans in the commercial centres and the surrounding residential areas and the investigation of local traffic management plans in residential areas.
There’s much, much more in these papers, but readers will have got the overall gist by now. The take home message is absolutely clear:
- Promises have never been kept much less delivered
- The 80/20 carve up is failing and will only get worse – dwellings are NOT going into Housing Diversity, but increasingly into Minimal Change.
- Traffic, parking, open space identified as major concerns over a decade ago has not been addressed.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 13, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Thank you, thank you for the reminder. Changes to the strategy were already afoot by this stage as Libs criticised Melbourne 2030 and GEC councillors at the time were quite happy not to follow planning Labor planning processes. At one stage the GE Annual Report had a structure plan for Glen Huntly to be implemented. But then it all changed with a Report in 2004, which identified the neighbourhood character of each suburb without suggesting any structure plans. Just like then so it is now, the blame for essential planning framework and its execution must lay with the Councillors at the time of decisions being made.
February 13, 2014 at 9:02 PM
AFAIK Council has only claimed to have consulted 15 years ago—it hasn’t claimed to have listened or implemented the feedback. The rest is history. In hindsight it is obvious we were fed bullshit, and should always have been suspicious of Council reserving the right to do whatever it wanted regardless of “policy”.
At least in the Planning Scheme, there isn’t an 80-20 rule. Policy states that the majority (> 50%) of additional dwellings are expected to go into Housing Diversity areas and the statistics are consistent with that outcome. Policy also states that a low intensity of development is the preferred character for the majority of Glen Eira’s residential areas [whatever they are]. Multi-unit development is supposed to be compatible with surrounding uses in Housing Diversity areas, and consistent with surrounding use, character and scale in Minimal Change. The policies refuse to recognise that Council included traditional residential suburbs and streets of low-density single dwellings in its Housing Diversity areas.
Whoever proposed, recommended, supported, or voted for section 21.14 Monitoring and Review should be out of a job. It is a shocking, abysmal, woeful, dreadful, appalling, pathetic, incompetent piece of pseudo-science, completely devoid of metrics. It is not possible to manage the effectiveness and efficiency of the planning scheme using the stated indicators and targets.
February 13, 2014 at 9:59 PM
FYI – Today’s Victorian Gazette features the following:
“MANNINGHAM PLANNING SCHEME
Notice of Approval of Amendment
Amendment C96
The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C96 to the Manningham Planning Scheme.
The Amendment comes into operation on the date this notice is published in the Government Gazette.
The Amendment introduces mandatory height controls and mandatory minimum lot sizes for residential development in areas covered by Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8 – Residential Areas Surrounding Activity Centres and Along Main Roads, and updates Clauses 21.05 and 21.16 to reflect these changes.”
What’s noteworthy about this amendment is the PROTECTION of residential areas surrounding activity centres and even on main roads there are height limits (mandatory) of 2 storey and consideration of lot sizes. All beyond the capabilities of Glen Eira where it’s one silly size fits all along main roads and within cooee of activity centres.
February 13, 2014 at 11:05 PM
Yes you are correct the Draft Open Space Strategy, didn’t even try to solve or alleviate our open space crisis, the invention of bogus public open space trying like mad to inflate our open area tally, along with suggestions to purchase a few tiny parcels of land, will not help our predicament. Lets wait and see if our Councillors swallow it, hook-line-and-sinker.
I bet you all Princes Park, the two Greens will be the first to sign up to this snow-job, with a “yes sir, yes sir – 3 bags full sir”
February 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM
The 2002 Housing Diversity/Minimal Change Policy is yet another, albeit hugely significant, example of a vague, “feel good, pat on the back” resident placating policy that is designed to be ignored and is unenforceable.
What concerns me is that the 2013 introduction of new planning zone has been accompanied by the same grandiose “feel good, pat on the back, resident placating” verbage yet deliberately excluded community consultation and any acknowledgement of the basic ancillary elements (structure planning, statements of character, open space, traffic and parking, significant vegetation, etc). The new zones initially have more teeth than anything done in past but for how long? Council is already chipping away at the so called “certainties” (removal of 2 dwellings per lot restriction on lots greater than 2000 sqm)
This time round the full impact of Council’s planning ineptitude will not take years to be felt and Council’s past failures flow on into the new zones and, regardless of their zoning, adversely impact all residents.
February 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM
Today’s Age has an article about how to sell a Lemon of a different kind. The Minister against Planning has intervened yet again to help out a big donor to the Liberal Party. While he insists the decision to grant a permit for a 29-storey tower at 661 Chapel St was not about the donation or other inducements offered by the developer, he didn’t offer a plausible explanation why intervention was appropriate and why he had so little confidence in VCAT to deliver the outcome he sought.
The article cites the delighted developer as claiming that he went through all the appropriate planning channels. This is obviously not true. It didn’t go through VCAT, and because it went through the Minister, the normal decision criteria don’t apply and the rationale for the decision cannot be publicly scrutinized. It sure looks like a sweetheart deal has been done, especially since denials of sweetheart deals are being thrown about. It looks like we will never be able to remove the politics of power from town planning decisions.
February 16, 2014 at 4:13 PM
Here is a link to many high rise developments in Melbourne.
http://www.allnewsau.com/news/matthew-guy-under-fire-over-chapel-street-tower-intervention/related